He was on the Seahawks post game show and just cannot get off the Luck bandwagon. Keeps saying cause indy has no running game and no (he claims) D that Luck is the best.

BUT COME'ON MAN luck has his yards because of all the passes he threw, His ints are terrible, had low QBR, and many games under 50% passing. Clayton is all about the "star" getting the vote not wanting to look at the facts. Does not give credit to a 3rd rounder trys to say it is all because he is on a good team.

RW totaly out played Luck this year but will not get the love from idiots like Clayton.

The Colts were 2-14 last season and now they are 11-5 this season. Sure Luck threw many picks during this season, but hey he brought the wins. Seattle had the good D from last season with Lynch. Washington had Morris and RGIII improving their game, but Luck had the less help (Reggie Wayne) and scrub RB Ballard.

Look at it this way even thought Luck has 8 more INT's than Wilson this season, he had the same wins as Wilson and has 1200 more yards than Wilson. Give everyone credit, and all 3 of them have a chance to win it.

Rich Eisen had said Russell Wilson should win MVP, do you see Colts fan angry at that comment?

1- John Clayton = Biggest Nerd in History of Universe2- John Clayton had his own office in Seahawks headquarters. When Paul Allen bought the team, Clayton's office was taken away and he had to start doing his Seahawks reports from the parking lot of HQ after practices. He was so incensed by how he was treated he leaked a bunch of stuff about the "dysfunctional Seahawks management". When he was called on having lost his office in team headquarters he acted all huffy as if it wasn't true. He does dislike the Hawks and he knows why... and it has nothing to do with David Greene and Mystermatt.

That sounds an awful like what Ruskell apparently did to Sando. Which made Sando butt-hurt so he trashed the Hawks for a long while.

Sando never had an office. That was eliminated. What happened to Sando was the NFL rules went into effect on video, audio, etc. and he had no advantage anymore as a local beat reporter. In fact, it cut his access considerably. Access went to the NFL Network #1, and to ESPN #2. Sando was placed in an extremely bad situation, and his only option was to take an NFL job, which he didn't want, or an ESPN job, which he didn't want either, because he wanted to be able to stay with the Trib at the same time. He negotiated back and forth with ESPN and finally got it worked out to where he could work out of Tacoma and keep his home. He only has to go to Bristol quarterly for meetings, and travel to games. 99% of his work he does from his house. So ESPN was his best option.

It was a crummy situation for him, as he had created a world class blog, and got that blowhard Ron Borges fired for plagiarism. Sando went at him full force, even threatening legal action. Great for him.

Sando really got screwed over by Goodell and his cronies and their new rules limiting anything beyond I think 60 seconds being recorded, so all of his podcasting and short player interviews were now considered copyright infringement by the NFL and they set all kinds of ridiculous rules. They saw that guys like Sando were creating much better content than they ever could. None of the teams went to bat for local beat writers either, and that really sucked. And yes... Ruskell was a dink and tried to cut off the connection between beat writers and the team. This irritated Holmgren as well, because as much as Holmgren liked keeping things "in house" he was great at leaking what he wanted to and was able to get bad info out more often than good info and mess with next week's opponent. After Ruskell came along then that conduit was cut off.

So in review.... I love Sando, I hate Ruskell, and I think Goodell is a self-serving jackhole that just doesn't get what a divide he is creating between NFL fans and the league itself. My brother who works for VISA has GREAT access to the NFL, and I have none. He can get tickets to the SuperBowl the day before it is played by making one call. I have to enter a lottery and spend my life savings. Really stupid for "real fans", but really great for those who support Roger's agenda of "Olympicizing" the NFL.

He was on the Seahawks post game show and just cannot get off the Luck bandwagon. Keeps saying cause indy has no running game and no (he claims) D that Luck is the best.

BUT COME'ON MAN luck has his yards because of all the passes he threw, His ints are terrible, had low QBR, and many games under 50% passing. Clayton is all about the "star" getting the vote not wanting to look at the facts. Does not give credit to a 3rd rounder trys to say it is all because he is on a good team.

RW totaly out played Luck this year but will not get the love from idiots like Clayton.

The Colts were 2-14 last season and now they are 11-5 this season. Sure Luck threw many picks during this season, but hey he brought the wins. Seattle had the good D from last season with Lynch. Washington had Morris and RGIII improving their game, but Luck had the less help (Reggie Wayne) and scrub RB Ballard.

Look at it this way even thought Luck has 8 more INT's than Wilson this season, he had the same wins as Wilson and has 1200 more yards than Wilson. Give everyone credit, and all 3 of them have a chance to win it.

Rich Eisen had said Russell Wilson should win MVP, do you see Colts fan angry at that comment?

How do you know they are not angry at this comment? Do you have your finger on the pulse of Colts nation?

seahawks875 wrote:Luck has carried his team all year, if u ever watch him play and not just look at his stats, he is the real deal, Wilson is one of the top qbs in the league in my opinion and a lot better than rg3 but luck deserves ROY

how? by throwing interceptions?

Like I said, u should actually watch football instead for looking at stats and acting like u know football when u really don't know what ur talking about

it doesn't matter. It's not like Luck's numbers are close. He far inferior to RW and RG3 in completion %,

Luck throw 234 more times than WIlson does and STILL is 3 TD's short of Wilson and Manning's record.

The fact is RW is more efficient than Luck. For anyone to argue that isn't looking at reality.

Luck is making more mistakes than either RW or RG3. Many of which are BAD THROWS/Decisions that are resulting in picks.

The only reason poeple are giving him the benefit of the doubt is A) because of his draft status of #1 pick and the insane hype that he's had the last 2 years. B) Because his team has won 11 games. SEveral of which have been closer than they needed to be because Luck was giving away the ball.

All 3 QB's have played well this year. But I think it's stupid to say that's it's clearly Luck's because he's thrown more yards. He loses every other statistical measure by significant margins. The point of football is to score and RW is responsible for more TD's than any of the other 2. So my vote is for RW.

jewhawk wrote:This is a great, detailed article from a few weeks ago comparing how Luck's usage affects his efficiency numbers compared to RG3's (the article only compares Luck and RG3, not Wilson).

All the article really argues is that Luck earns recognition for seeing more reps. I find that hard to swallow as much of an argument though, Wilson and RG3 had games this year where they topped 30 or 35 attempts and their efficiency numbers did not change.

From the article:

Griffin has lost a yard of efficiency roughly every six attempts, whereas Luck has lost one just every 50.

Luck was remarkably consistent no matter how often he had to throw. You could argue that RG3's superior efficiency throwing between 20-25 times a game is more impressive, but it's a mistake to completely ignore Luck's performance even in games where he had to throw 50+ times. And it's wrong to say that RG3's efficiency numbers did not change when they had to throw more. RG3's AY/A for the year was 8.59. In his five games where he attempted the most passes (29, 34, 35, 34, 39), his AY/A in those games were 6.24, 7.09, 9.23, 5.79, and 5.51, with the 9.23 game coming against Tampa Bay's defense that was one of the worst in the league against the pass. Luck's AY/A for the year was 6.42. In his five games where he attempted the most passes (46, 55, 48, 50, 54), his AY/A in those games were 6.70, 6.49, 9.85, 4.78, and 6.22. Wilson's AY/A for the year was 8.11. In his six games where he attempted the most passes (34, 27, 35, 27, 37), his AY/A in those games were 3.76, 13.07, 6.60, 9.78, and 9.00, with the 3.76 game being week 1 against the Cardinals in his first game in a limited offense. So you're right about Wilson's efficiency not suffering much with increased attempts, but RG3's efficiency dropped significantly with increased usage.

I also think you're downplaying the effect of the running game on RG3's efficiency. Sure, he deserves some credit for that because he's a threat to run himself, but I saw a stat somewhere a few weeks ago that RG3 led the league in Y/A from play-action, and was last in the league in Y/A without play action. This is further illustrated by looking at his numbers on 3rd and long, where there is no real threat of a rush on obvious passing downs. Here are the numbers for the rookie QBs on 3rd and 8 or more to go:

So in situations where the defense knows it's a pass, RG3 struggles in a way that Luck and Wilson don't. Again, I'm not even saying I think Luck should win ROY. To me, the best order would be 1. Wilson, 2. Luck, 3. Griffin, but it's close between all of them.

He was on the Seahawks post game show and just cannot get off the Luck bandwagon. Keeps saying cause indy has no running game and no (he claims) D that Luck is the best.

BUT COME'ON MAN luck has his yards because of all the passes he threw, His ints are terrible, had low QBR, and many games under 50% passing. Clayton is all about the "star" getting the vote not wanting to look at the facts. Does not give credit to a 3rd rounder trys to say it is all because he is on a good team.

RW totaly out played Luck this year but will not get the love from idiots like Clayton.

The Colts were 2-14 last season and now they are 11-5 this season. Sure Luck threw many picks during this season, but hey he brought the wins. Seattle had the good D from last season with Lynch. Washington had Morris and RGIII improving their game, but Luck had the less help (Reggie Wayne) and scrub RB Ballard.

Look at it this way even thought Luck has 8 more INT's than Wilson this season, he had the same wins as Wilson and has 1200 more yards than Wilson. Give everyone credit, and all 3 of them have a chance to win it.

Rich Eisen had said Russell Wilson should win MVP, do you see Colts fan angry at that comment?

Colts were 2 and 14 because they purposely sucked for luck. They put in a 12th string QB for the year so that they would lose. They were a 10 / 11 win team before and it was not all just because of Manning. As for the same amount of wins as the Hawks did you actually look at their schedule and number of over 500 teams they played?

I never said that Luck or BG3 were not good, I merely object to Clayton and his "analysis" which is my right. Please note where did I say I was angry how did that get into your comment? You can be disgusted by someone or something it does not have anything to do with anger.

Colts AVERAGED over 12 wins per season for the prior 8 years before siezing the opportunity to replace Manning with the next great QB.Indy from 2003-2010... 99-29, .773 winning %, average 12.3 wins - 3.6 losses. That is a DYNASTY!

This is not a bad team being lifted by a great new young QB-- it's a very good team that had one down year. They did everything possible to make sure they got the number one overall pick. Didn't even try to win until they had a two game "lead".

Also, on Clayton-- He just guesses along with everyone else, and is wrong more often than not. He actually sucks at a) predictions, and b) inside info. I think some real NFL people feed him crap just for fun. But he isn't as clueless as Mel Kiper though...

meh, who cares, they're all in the playoffs, all wild cards, all with similar records and stats, let post season play dictate their prestige, if they all lose their first or second games then fall back on stats..

you have to figure if Luck did carry his team then he will fail in the playoffs, same with the rest...

The colts had an awful roster with manning. It is even far worse now. It shouldnt be held against luck that he had to throw more. The dude put his entire team on his back. Russell didn't. So Russ should have and did have more efficient results.

To me, the best way to determine the winner is to try to picture what the players seasons would have played out like if their roles were reversed. Wilson certainly had the far easier task, i don't think that is debatable. Can somebody answer this question...how many games would the colts have won if wilson was their qb?

jewhawk wrote:This is a great, detailed article from a few weeks ago comparing how Luck's usage affects his efficiency numbers compared to RG3's (the article only compares Luck and RG3, not Wilson).

All the article really argues is that Luck earns recognition for seeing more reps. I find that hard to swallow as much of an argument though, Wilson and RG3 had games this year where they topped 30 or 35 attempts and their efficiency numbers did not change.

From the article:

Griffin has lost a yard of efficiency roughly every six attempts, whereas Luck has lost one just every 50.

Luck was remarkably consistent no matter how often he had to throw. You could argue that RG3's superior efficiency throwing between 20-25 times a game is more impressive, but it's a mistake to completely ignore Luck's performance even in games where he had to throw 50+ times. And it's wrong to say that RG3's efficiency numbers did not change when they had to throw more. RG3's AY/A for the year was 8.59. In his five games where he attempted the most passes (29, 34, 35, 34, 39), his AY/A in those games were 6.24, 7.09, 9.23, 5.79, and 5.51, with the 9.23 game coming against Tampa Bay's defense that was one of the worst in the league against the pass. Luck's AY/A for the year was 6.42. In his five games where he attempted the most passes (46, 55, 48, 50, 54), his AY/A in those games were 6.70, 6.49, 9.85, 4.78, and 6.22. Wilson's AY/A for the year was 8.11. In his six games where he attempted the most passes (34, 27, 35, 27, 37), his AY/A in those games were 3.76, 13.07, 6.60, 9.78, and 9.00, with the 3.76 game being week 1 against the Cardinals in his first game in a limited offense. So you're right about Wilson's efficiency not suffering much with increased attempts, but RG3's efficiency dropped significantly with increased usage.

I also think you're downplaying the effect of the running game on RG3's efficiency. Sure, he deserves some credit for that because he's a threat to run himself, but I saw a stat somewhere a few weeks ago that RG3 led the league in Y/A from play-action, and was last in the league in Y/A without play action. This is further illustrated by looking at his numbers on 3rd and long, where there is no real threat of a rush on obvious passing downs. Here are the numbers for the rookie QBs on 3rd and 8 or more to go:

So in situations where the defense knows it's a pass, RG3 struggles in a way that Luck and Wilson don't. Again, I'm not even saying I think Luck should win ROY. To me, the best order would be 1. Wilson, 2. Luck, 3. Griffin, but it's close between all of them.

Tical21 wrote:The colts had an awful roster with manning. It is even far worse now. It shouldnt be held against luck that he had to throw more. The dude put his entire team on his back. Russell didn't. So Russ should have and did have more efficient results.

To me, the best way to determine the winner is to try to picture what the players seasons would have played out like if their roles were reversed. Wilson certainly had the far easier task, i don't think that is debatable. Can somebody answer this question...how many games would the colts have won if wilson was their qb?

Luck shouldn't get extra points because the Colts tanked their season by starting Painter either.

If you want to give a guy ROY who had a worse season but had excuses for having it, go ahead, just doesn't seem right to me. "Sure, Luck was worse than the other two, but.....". Don't get that, personally.

I think Luck gets a lot of attention (aside from being drafted first overall and being one of the most hyped QB's of all-time) because the Colts were 2-14 last season. This year they're playoff bound with a 11-5 record.

I have to admit that Russell Wilson has a better team around him than Andrew Luck. An elite tailback and top five defense are not luxuries that Luck has. So, it's easy for Andy Luck nutswingers to argue for him and make excuses for his horrid passing % and TD/INT rate.

What i've seen as far as reasons/excuses for Luck to be OROY are petty stuff like; "Luck has 23 TD passes, that's only 3 less than Wilson." But they ignore the fact that Andrew Luck has 18 interceptions to Russell Wilson's 10. I also see a lot of people bringing up his passing yards. Yeah, Luck has 4,374 yards passing, but his accuracy is 54.1 pct. Compare that to Wilson's 64.1% (on his 3,118 yds).

Anyway.. You can bring up raw stats and make a case for either of the three rookie quarterbacks. RG3 has certainly been outstanding as well. IMO, Offensive Rookie of the Year is between Wilson and RG3. Griffin III had an amazing regular season. He may not have thrown 26 TD's (RG3 has 20 TD passes), but he only has 5 interceptions on a 65.6 PCT and 3,200 yards. On top of his 815 rushing yards for 7 rushing touchdowns.

Offensive Rookie of the Year is going to come down to playoff performance. Since Luck, Wilson and RG3 are all in the postseason. Whoever takes their team further will win the award. It may come down to the Seahawks vs. Redskins game. Russell Wilson versus Robert Griffin III. Whoever wins the game, will most likely win Offensive Rookie of the Year. Unless Luck takes his team to the Superbowl. How great would it be to see Wilson and Luck square off in the Superbowl?!

What kind of a record do you think we have playing Green Bay, New England, Chicago, San Francisco, etc., with Jackson at the helm? Do you honestly think we'd pull any of those games out? How many 80- to 90-yard touchdown drives has Wilson made look easy this year? How many game-winning drives did Jackson lead for us?

We're a 5-11 team at best with no quarterback change. Anybody who thinks differently hasn't been watching the Seahawks the last couple of seasons. And that's all on Wilson.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

seahawks875 wrote:Luck has carried his team all year, if u ever watch him play and not just look at his stats, he is the real deal, Wilson is one of the top qbs in the league in my opinion and a lot better than rg3 but luck deserves ROY

How can you say Luck "carried" a team that went to the Superbowl 3 years ago and was 9-7 2 years ago? The 2-14 season they had last year completely skews the perception people have about his contributions. Last years Colts team was much better than their record indicated. That team gave up on their season. Luck is not the only reason they went 11-5 this year.

seahawks875 wrote:Luck has carried his team all year, if u ever watch him play and not just look at his stats, he is the real deal, Wilson is one of the top qbs in the league in my opinion and a lot better than rg3 but luck deserves ROY

How can you say Luck "carried" a team that went to the Superbowl 3 years ago and was 9-7 2 years ago? The 2-14 season they had last year completely skews the perception people have about his contributions. Last years Colts team was much better than their record indicated. That team gave up on their season. Luck is not the only reason they went 11-5 this year.

I think that team was better than 2-14, if you put a good-but-not-great quarterback like say Sam Bradford on the Chiefs they'd probably have won 10 games this year, that doesn't mean Sam Bradford is the second coming of the messiah. The talent is there, the coaching and the QB are not, and the Colts were the exact same.

However I can't agree that it's not possible for a QB to carry a team that was a contender not long before, I'd say Matt Hasselbeck carried our 2007 team that was a superbowl team 2 years prior, and certainly by 2009 was devoid of talent.

Has anyone thought about this.How good would the Hawks record be, if Russell Wilson was anointed the starter before even getting into training camp?Does anyone remember how we lost the Arizona game in AZ?We had first and goal I think 6 times inside the AZ 10 and we couldn't convert. Given how the playbook has been opened of late, I can't even imagine us not converting on 1 and goal again. To me, the fact that RGIII and Andrew Luck were named started basically back in April gave them a massive advantage over RW.The playbook was opened for RW really only around the Miami/Chicago games. A week before the season, RW was still splitting reps with Matt Flynn, for crying out loud. One more win would have given us the division and the #2 seed. Think about it for a minute.

themunn wrote:However I can't agree that it's not possible for a QB to carry a team that was a contender not long before, I'd say Matt Hasselbeck carried our 2007 team that was a superbowl team 2 years prior, and certainly by 2009 was devoid of talent.

I would not debate this point. However, you could easily use the comparison of the 2011 vs. the 2012 Seahahwks as proof of RW's value. Same basic talent outside QB, same coaching staff very different results but that doesn't mean RW "carried" the team. He did make the difference though. Luck did the same. All things being equal in this regards I say RW is ROY because he has higher QBR, higher completion percentage more TD passes and more rushing yards than Luck. He should get it over RG3 because no one ever expected his numbers to be as good in almost every category and yet he was a 3rd rounder.

Tical21 wrote:The colts had an awful roster with manning. It is even far worse now. It shouldnt be held against luck that he had to throw more. The dude put his entire team on his back. Russell didn't. So Russ should have and did have more efficient results.

To me, the best way to determine the winner is to try to picture what the players seasons would have played out like if their roles were reversed. Wilson certainly had the far easier task, i don't think that is debatable. Can somebody answer this question...how many games would the colts have won if wilson was their qb?

Luck shouldn't get extra points because the Colts tanked their season by starting Painter either.

If you want to give a guy ROY who had a worse season but had excuses for having it, go ahead, just doesn't seem right to me. "Sure, Luck was worse than the other two, but.....". Don't get that, personally.

When did I ever mention anything about the Colts record last year? Player for player, the Colts have one of the 5 worst rosters in the NFL. They had one of the 7-10 worst during most of Manning's career as well. Whoever got that roster to 11 wins is definitely deserving of some kind of award, that's all I'm saying. I don't know what tangent you started going on or why you felt the need to put words in my mouth.

Tical21 wrote:The colts had an awful roster with manning. It is even far worse now. It shouldnt be held against luck that he had to throw more. The dude put his entire team on his back. Russell didn't. So Russ should have and did have more efficient results.

To me, the best way to determine the winner is to try to picture what the players seasons would have played out like if their roles were reversed. Wilson certainly had the far easier task, i don't think that is debatable. Can somebody answer this question...how many games would the colts have won if wilson was their qb?

Luck shouldn't get extra points because the Colts tanked their season by starting Painter either.

If you want to give a guy ROY who had a worse season but had excuses for having it, go ahead, just doesn't seem right to me. "Sure, Luck was worse than the other two, but.....". Don't get that, personally.

When did I ever mention anything about the Colts record last year? Player for player, the Colts have one of the 5 worst rosters in the NFL. They had one of the 7-10 worst during most of Manning's career as well. Whoever got that roster to 11 wins is definitely deserving of some kind of award, that's all I'm saying. I don't know what tangent you started going on or why you felt the need to put words in my mouth.

Player for player, the Colts have one of the 5 worst rosters in the NFL? Says who? You? Why? Reggie Wayne is a HOFer. Does RW have one of those to throw to? Luck has a couple of young and extremely talented WR's that complement Wayne. They have one of the best-regarded young offensive lines in the league. Articles like this one detail how their offensive line is better at every position between 2011 and 2012 with their roster overhaul. Every position! How many teams can say that in 2012? Obviously, RW has the advantage of a stronger RB complement. No argument there. The quality of their defense is irrelevant to this conversation for the purposes of determining how good Luck is vs his OROTY competition. A weaker defense accounted for his higher number of attempts and created, frankly, those opportunities for game-winning drives that the other guys had a few less of. Other than that, going position-by-position on the defensive side of the ball to try and prove that Luck is more deserving than RW (or RG) is a total red herring.

I think one factor that you're overlooking here is that Luck had the luxury of much better protection in the pocket this year. Colts QBs (Luck) were only sacked 6.13% of the time this year. Luck's a solid runner and pretty intuitive about the pass rush, but he was getting good protection this year overall. If anything, that should obviously help Luck's numbers - diminish his interceptions and improve his completion percentages. Seattle QB's (Wilson)? Sacked 7.53% of the time. That's WITH Wilson escaping innumerable additional sacks. Wilson was arguably at his best in these situations when the play broke down and it was up to him to make the plays. He kept his interception rate low and his completion percentage high in spite of inferior pass protection. Not to mention the quality of Seattle's receivers is pretty average. Rice is talented but inconsistent. Always has been. Tate? Even more inconsistent. Baldwin (injuries)? Edwards (done)? Who else was there to throw to, really? Miller? A decent complement. Bottom line, I'd bet most objective organizations would rather have the HOFer in Wayne and the young talent in Indy over Seattle's average lot of receivers.

All of this, imo, would make RW's accomplishments this season more impressive than Luck's EVEN IF their numbers were essentially equal. The fact that Wilson has gotten better and better throughout the season and put up significantly better numbers than Luck? I just don't see an argument for Luck other than the immeasurable and thus pointless "he had less talent around him" argument.

Oh yeah, and your question about, "how many games would the colts have won if wilson was their qb?" As if anyone can answer this. I will say the following, though. I think Luck would've been sacked 50+ times as a Seahawk this year (RW was sacked 33 times) given the same number of pass plays behind our OL. So much of RW's value comes from avoiding negative plays that most QB's wouldn't be able to. That just adds to RW's merits for the award.

Just two cents from a guy who watches a lot of NFL games every week.

“I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them.” ― George H.W. Bush

Not going to bash on Luck because he has had a great season but to think he is in the ball park of RG3 and RW is for ROY is ridiculous. I hate the "but his team was the worst in football last year!" argument. It is just an excuse for ESPN and other media outlets to push their agenda because they practically named him rookie of the year the minute he was drafted.

seahawks875 wrote:Luck has carried his team all year, if u ever watch him play and not just look at his stats, he is the real deal, Wilson is one of the top qbs in the league in my opinion and a lot better than rg3 but luck deserves ROY

how? by throwing interceptions?

Don't forget his 10 fumbles also, agains the easiest schedule in the NFL.

Uh what? Manning's numbers aren't relevant, and I'd say he wouldn't deserve it if he were up against Wilson and Griffin in his year either.

ROY isn't about projecting which player is going to be the best, it's about recognizing the rookie that did play the best in their rookie year. Luck's numbers do kinda suck, as did Manning's, at least when compared to Griffin and Wilson regardless of how you rate them as players in the long-term.